Which lens/es for 10D?

[david_french3]

I have a 10D and have been using a Tamron 28-300 zoom for just over a year. It's not

been bad, but I've had some iffy experiences with the lens (focusing / clarity problems).

Then I tried a friend's Canon 28-135 IS lens and thought the IS was *great*. So I started

thinking about replacing the Tamron with something altogether higher quality.

 

I've also found the 28-300 is a bit limiting on a APS-C sized sensor such as the one in the

10D because it's not wide enough for some of what I want to do.

 

I mainly do travelogue & candid portrait (ie, non-studio) photography; also some

landscape, but nothing the 28-300 hasn't been able to cope with. I already have a Sigma

17-35 and Canon 50mm F/1.8, but neither of these see a huge amount of use compared

to the long zoom. (Needless to say, I never have the 17-35 with me when I need a wide

angle shot.) I tend not to have a tripod with me most of the time, hence the appeal of

IS.

 

I'm currently considering 2 possibilities:

 

1) Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS

 

2) Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L plus Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS with extender

 

Neither of these options is remotely cheap, so I really want to make sure I get this right

first time! I also don't want to be buying lenses again in 3 years or so when the 10D is old

hat and I'm looking at a 16mp digital slr for $1500 :)

 

On the one hand, I like the idea of a single lens, as I don't like changing lenses all the time

(dust, extra weight, possibility of dropping one). This puts the 28-300 in a good light.

But, it's a darn heavy lens to lug around *all* the time (for example, I'm doing candid

shots at a wedding in December). And 3.5-5.6 isn't a particularly spectacular aperture in

the scheme of things, although the IS gives you a couple of extra stops from the point of

view of shake, if not depth-of-field.

 

On the other hand, the second option appeals because of the large aperture throughout

the range - it'd give me 24-200 at F/2.8 and 140-400 at F/5.6 with a 2x extender. But

then I'd have to change lenses when I wanted to move up and down the range. And would

I always have the right lens with me? I also like the fact that both these lenses are rated

very highly for optical quality by people who use them, and the 70-200 seems less prone

to dust because of the rotational zoom action. The 24-70 would also give me a little extra

space at the wide angle, but at the same time, it doesn't have the IS which I find so

appealing. Finally, with things like weddings, I wouldn't have to lug the bulk of the longer

lens around unless I thought I was going to need it.

 

Does anybody have any comments on this decision, based on previous experience with

any or all of the above kit?

 

Thanks,

David.

[joshchapman]

Comments? Don't worry so much about having every focal length covered. It's not like you need a 1200mm lens, right?

[audun_sjoeseth1]

I agree with Josh.

 

1. I'd go for an EF24-70/2.8L.

 

2. Then a macro around 100mm/2.8 or perhaps the new Sigma 150/2.8 macro?

 

3. If needed, I'd go for a EF200/2.8 and EF1.4xII(I'm very satisfied) or an EF300/4L IS and the EF1.4xII.

 

I'd definitly not go for an EF28-300/3.5-5.6L IS. Good Luck!

[hytham_saati]

I own a 10D with the Canon 28-135 IS, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 MACRO, and recently bought a Tamron 19-35 f/3.5-4.5.

 

I bought the 28-135 IS with my 10D. I think that it was a very good lens, only limited by its not so wide angle on the 10D. I excellent for entry level use, given its 45-216mm range. Under all shooting conditions, the quality was never less than good. I am mostly using it for travel photography. I bought a Tamron 90mm f/2.8, which is an awesome lens both in quality and cost. Currently I use it most of the time. I would prefer to change my location to take pictures with it. I think I would feel the same with my next prime lens. I bought some studio strobes and I am experimenting with lighting with this lens. The AF sucks and I have it on manual all the time. The Canon?s USM is great.

 

I had to do a location job and I had no choice than to get the Tamron 19-35 lens. I live in a country where there not much professional camera stores and I am impatient to order equipment over the mail (which might take a month or more to arrive and clear customs) Anyways, by having this lens I was able to figure out the meaning of a crappy lens. I could figure out all the problems that people talk about, such as barrel distortion, CA, soft picture, etc. I am really glad that I made the price of the lens from that job. I wouldn?t know whether to us my 3 year old digicam or this lens.

 

 

 

Anyway, I am planning to buy both the EF 70-200L f/4 and the EF 17-40L f/4. I think this is a very excellent combination at $1,200. I wouldn?t care about f/4 at the moment since I will compensate with ISO setting. Also I would add the 50 f/1.8 once I see it somewhere or even the 50 f/1.4 USM as a walk-around lens.

 

However, my real concern is that it feels very awkward when changing lenses, especially the small ones. Now, do professionals carry two or three bodies with them? Or do need to learn how to juggle these lenses faster? I certainly would want to or can I afford at the moment to walk around with two DSLR?s especially during travel.

 

I would like to image changing lenses in a humid/tropical/dusty area or in a big crowd of people. Is this is something everyone with an SLR faces or do get used to it after a while? Maybe this is why they made the 28-300L. But again, 28mm is not that great.

 

Thanks and sorry for not making my post shorter.

[bojan_hohnjec1]

I would preffer second option because of:

1.f2,8 2.much better optical quality than 28-300 3.f2,8 4.If you buy eos 1d's mark 2 with full frame sensor you'll probably see that 28-300 is the same crap as 28-135 5.f2,8 6.IS doesn't stop the motion 7.f2,8

[lotsawa]

The Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS is heavy (and of course expensive, but that's another question). Image quality is not very high, according to reviews I've read. Even Canon can't get around the laws of physics, and it seems impossible to build superzooms with really good image quality. Also the 28 mm might not be wide enough if you really want to work with just one lens.

[edward_h]

Unlike others here I've actually shot with the 28-300 for a whole day. My opinion? Push-pull is terrible, focus ring is too tight to be usable and it's dark. Too dark for concerts, too dark for inside sports.

 

I'd skip it and go for the 24-70 and 70-200IS. Easy. No discussion. I'm not so sure about the extender. Even shooting sports I don't need much more than 200mm.

 

Quality wise, it's absolutely fine on a 1.6x.

[david_french3]

Thanks for comments so far. It's looking like the 2-lens approach is the popular option.

Unfortunately it's the more expensive choice, but hey, I don't have any kids yet :)

 

The reason I'd like to hang on to the extra length is that looking back through my photo

collection, there are a surprising number taken at 300mm, where I couldn't get closer to

the action (without missing it maybe), although the vast majority are still <100mm. So it

would seem a shame to lose the long end of the zoom. At the same time, most of my

300mm shots are either shaky or lack sharpness, so if I'm going for that end of the range,

I want a lens that's fast enough and sharp enough to do it justice.

 

The next question is, where can I buy these in the UK at US prices, given that the lenses

are around 30% cheaper in the US [/rhetoric] :)

[scott_eaton]

A Canon 50mm 1.8 will make all the lenses David is considering seem like a coke-bottle in comparison. Not sure why you people MUST have zooms, but it's your monely to waste until Canon finally produces a series of zooms (and primes) worthy of their dSLRs.

[charlie_vigue]

You could go with the 28-135 IS and the 300mm f4L. If you need wide, get a wide prime too.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 28-300 will be a good lens. Not great - the 24-70 and 70-200 will beat it on optics, as their roughly 3x zoom ranges are much less of a stretch than the roughly 11x zoom range of the 28-300. But better than consumer-grade 28-300 lenses, for sure. As you point out, it's a big, heavy monster. If I had unlimited funds, I'd get one, but I don't think I'd use it very often, and it would definitely not be my everyday lens.</p>

 

<p>Option 2 is much better. Better optics, faster lenses. The issue of having to change lenses is a reasonable one - but sooner or later you'll get dust in your camera anyway, and the push/pull design of the 28-300 is the same basic design as that of the 100-400, which has a reputation for blowing a lot of dust around.</p>

 

<p>For the extender, I'd skip the 2x unless you absolutely need the extra reach (to 400mm, which with the crop factor is an effective 640, and do you really need that much lens?). The 1.4x will give you higher quality than the 2x, and of course will be a stop faster.</p>

[edward_h]

> A Canon 50mm 1.8 will make all the lenses David is considering seem like a coke-bottle in comparison.

 

I hope that your 50/1.8, and consequently everybody else's 50's are extremely different to mine. Mine is soft until you reach 2.8.

 

My 24-70, on the other hand, is as sharp at f8 as it is as f2.8 (on my 1.6x sensor).

[jimdavis]

Scott Eaton Photo.net Anti-Hero blurted out:

"A Canon 50mm 1.8 will make all the lenses David is considering seem like a coke-bottle in comparison. Not sure why you people MUST have zooms, but it's your monely to waste until Canon finally produces a series of zooms (and primes) worthy of their dSLRs."

 

Ha! hahahaha. Show us the photos!

 

Seriously, you're some young punk who's anal sharpness phobia is overwhelming your shooting ability or your ability to think past sharpness. How many great photos have you seen lately shot at 50mm?

 

I got rid of my 50/1.4 after getting a used 28-135 IS and finding out the zoom is sharp enough for me. I didn't like the shallow DOF and changing lenses all the time. Or carrying an extra lens I didn't use much.

 

Here's a test for you. Shoot both the 50/1.8 and the 28-135 IS at 50mm, f8 on a tripod and then come back here and admit that you could not tell the difference. Or, just go to Photodo, read the stats and shut the F up.

 

Then try shooting the 50 at 28mm, 100mm, or 135mm and report back :-)

 

Coke bottle indeed. Moron.

[joshchapman]

Jim: Wow. There's absolutely no reason to call some one a "moron" and tell them to "shut the f up." Hopefully we're a little past that on this forum, otherwise I don't know how people would trust us with the thousands of dollars of photo equipment many of us profess to use. (I have my doubts: I think some people just sit at home vehemtly defending their purchases on photo.net without ever ging through any film/putting a CF card in the camera).

 

Anyway, primes vs zooms is a trade off. If you need more quality for big enlargements or a wider aperature in a smaller package for low light work you'll go with the prime. If you don't/can't move around and need different focal lengths then a zoom will work better. They're just tools, and in this case David is just trying to find the right ones for him. And seeing as David finds zooms work for him, it shouldn't be that big of an issue to answer his question keeping that in mind (nb: that's not to say that a 50 wouldn't be useful for him in certain situations like low light shooting).

 

David: Just as there are primes vs zooms, you've got the problem of zooms vs superzooms. You seem to prefer the zooms so while I'm personally a fan of primes (I'm always trying to get as much light as I can at concerts), I think your second option will provide better quality and faster glass than the 28-200. Switching lenses isn't that bad. And really it just requires is a little bit of forethought and experience to know when you're likely to use one or the other. Hope this helps.

 

Cheers - Josh

[boris_chan1]

Scott: "Not sure why you people MUST have zooms, but it's your

monely to waste......."

 

Because they really are sharp enough to make compelling

pictures. Why the abuse?

 

ps I love the cheesecore self portraits. MUST have been taken on

a quality prime lens.........

[danny_lee2]

I dont see why you people have to have SLRS ! My Nickelodeon Photoblaster makes david's camera look like a jock strap.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I'm currently considering 2 possibilities: <br>

1) Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS <br>

2) Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L plus Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS with extender </i> </p>

<p> Option 2 all the way. However, for a 10D user I'd think that the 17-40/4 will be more useful than the 24-70/2.8.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>